ion 11 (2008) 33–41

Internet and Higher Educat

Providing a flexible, learner-centred programme: Challenges for educators

Sarah Cornelius ⁎, Carole Gordon

School of Education, University of Aberdeen, MacRobert Building, King's College, Aberdeen, AB24 5UA, UK

Accepted 27 November 2007

Abstract

This paper presents a case study of the implementation of a flexible learner-centred programme of study which blends face-to-face and onlinelearning. The programme was developed to be flexible in terms of content and study strategies, whilst remaining within more rigid organisationalstructures and processes. This paper outlines the programme and presents the model developed for flexible content delivery. The programme hasbeen delivered simultaneously by five tutors to six groups of learners. Tutors drew on varying personal experiences of flexible and online learningand this paper also presents the results of an investigation to explore their experiences of facilitation. The findings provide a unique insight into theimplications of such a programme for educators. Data were gathered using methods to promote and structure reflections on practice. Issues ofrelevance for others considering the development of flexible learner-centred programmes of study are presented.© 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Flexible learning; Learner-centred learning; Reflective practice; Tutor role; Online learning

1. Flexible learning

Flexibility is a topical issue inmanypost-secondary institutionsas providers strive to cater for an increasingly diverse studentpopulation. The issue has been the subject of recent interest to theUK's Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA)and their work has resulted in the development of models forflexible programme delivery (Normand & Littlejohn, 2006) and apractical guide for those providing flexible learning (Casey &Wilson, 2006).

Flexible learning is difficult to define, but some authors regardthis as a strength of the concept since it allows practitioners tointerpret it in their own way (Bridgland & Blanchard, 2001).Common themes in definitions are that flexible learning is learner-centred rather than teacher-centred and that flexible learningprovides resources whichmeet the needs of the learner (Bridgland&Blanchard, 2001; Collis &Moonen, 2001). Provision of choicefor the learner is another key element (Collis & Moonen, 2001;Jochems, vanMerrienboer, &Koper, 2004) together with the idea

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 1224 274616.E-mail addresses: s.cornelius@abdn.ac.uk (S. Cornelius),

c.a.gordon@abdn.ac.uk (C. Gordon).

1096-7516/$ - see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.11.003

that the learner has control over the choices they make in con-nection with their learning. Flexibility can be provided from theperspective of time and place (Jochems et al., 2004). Bridglandand Blanchard (2001) considered this flexibility of time and placeto be the most familiar aspect, often provided for by onlineresources. Moran and Myringer (1999) additionally consideredthat flexible learning should help develop independent lifelonglearners, and that it changes the role of the teacher to one offacilitator and mentor.

Perhaps the most widely adopted and adapted view offlexibility is that provided by Collis and Moonen (2001). Theyidentified five ‘dimensions’ of flexibility (after Collis, Vinger-hoets, & Moonen, 1997):

1. Flexibility related to time2. Flexibility related to content3. Flexibility related to entrance requirements4. Flexibility related to instructional approach and resources5. Flexibility related to course delivery and logistics.

Collis and Moonen's model is considered to be helpful whenanalysing flexibility (Casey & Wilson, 2006), and similar ideasare behind a more recent model developed as a ‘framework’ or

34 S. Cornelius, C. Gordon / Internet and Higher Education 11 (2008) 33–41

‘planning tool’ to facilitate the “effective implementation offlexible delivery within a Scottish FE [Further Education] andHE [Higher Education] context” (Normand & Littlejohn, 2006,p. 4). Normand and Littlejohn's model addressed three levels:institutional management, operational management, and teach-ing–learning management. At each of these levels stakeholdersshould identify key issues across three perspectives: context,process, and technology. This paper focuses on issues ofteaching–learning management (Normand & Littlejohn, 2006)or flexibility related to content, instructional approach andresources (Collis & Moonen, 2001). These are the ‘dimensions’or levels where issues of course design surface and wherelecturers and tutors engage directly with learners.

Normand and Littlejohn (2006) suggested that “the literaturecontains little hard, empirical evidence concerning programmesthat increase learners' choice and improve learning through theintroduction of flexible learning” (p. 9). They cited Twigg's (2002)‘Pew Teaching and Learning Programme’ as an exception. ThePew programme involved thirtyAmerican institutions and reportedincreased learning by students on individualized learning pro-grammes based on an audit of knowledge and assessment of needs.The work presented in this paper takes a more focused perspective,examining an individual case study of a programme (the TeachingQualification for Further Education or TQ(FE)) which adopts aflexible approach to the delivery of content. We consider theexperiences of the programme team in an attempt to provide furtherevidence of the impact and implications of flexible learning.

Following an introduction to the nature and role of flexibility inthe TQ(FE) programme, including the activity-focused modeldeveloped for the delivery of course content, we present themethodology used and the results of research undertaken withtutors to help us understand their experiences of facilitating thisflexible, online, learner-centred programme of study. A compara-tive review of these findings with other studies is provided andgeneral issues for designers and those delivering similarprogrammes are outlined.

2. Flexibility in the TQ(FE) programme

The TQ(FE) is an undergraduate level in-service programmefor lecturers in Scottish Further Education (FE) colleges. Under-taken with the University of Aberdeen by over 100 FE lecturerseach year, the programme has been designed to be learner-centredand provide a flexible and responsive experience for participants.This flexibility is needed as the participants may come fromprofessional backgrounds as diverse as child care, construction orcomputer science, whilst their previous educational experiencemay be at anything from pre-degree to postgraduate level. Theneeds, interests, and abilities of such a diverse group of learners arechallenging — some require considerable support, whilst otherswant to be stretched and challenged by the subject matter. Thecontext within which they work is equally challenging. They maybe involved with the teaching of school children from age 13upwards,mature students in the community, prison-based learners,international students, or thosewith special needs. The programmeis facilitated for small groups of around 15 FE lecturers, normallyfrom one college at a time, by one university tutor.

In some of the dimensions suggested by Collis and Moonen(2001) little or no flexibility is possible for the TQ(FE). Forexample, the entry requirements for the course are specified by theScottishGovernment in their Professional Standards for lecturers inFE (SE, 2006). These standards provide a framework for a TQ(FE)programme, together with indicative content. External accredita-tion and university assessment norms also provide constraints onflexibility. In terms of time a little more flexibility is possible —individual colleges can negotiate course duration (9 or 18 months)and start and end dates, although individual participants are boundby themodel their college adopts. The provision ofmaterials onlinedoes, however, provide learners with the flexibility to accessresources for study whenever and wherever they have an Internetconnection.

In other areas, flexibility is fundamental to the design anddelivery of the programme. To respond to participants' diversebackgrounds, flexibility in terms of content and instructionalmethods is essential. This has been addressed by the developmentof an activity-based approach blending face-to-face and onlinelearning. Such an approach, in which learning activities describehow the learner should work with learning resources to reachlearning objectives, has also been proposed by Bang andDalsgaard (2006). They argued for an emphasis on learningactivities rather than learning resources in the design of e-learningto support collaborative learning.

A review of the TQ(FE) programme in 2006 provided theopportunity for a transformation of the course design. Radicalredesign was informed by practical experiences with educa-tional technology (for example with online workshops (Corne-lius & Gordon, 2005) and learning objects (Cornelius & Weller,2005)) and developments in pedagogical frameworks such asthose provided by the critical skills programme (Weatherley,Bonney, Kerr, & Morrison, 2003), communities of enquiry(Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002), and reflective practice(Moon, 2004).

The new TQ(FE) programme is made up of four courses:

• Understanding Learners in Further Education• Facilitating Learning in Further Education• Professional Issues in Further Education• Teaching Experience in Further Education.

Each of these 15 credit courses is at level 9 on the ScottishCredit and Qualifications Framework (SCQF, 2007) and accountsfor approximately 150 h study time. The first three are taughtcourses which are explained more fully below. The fourth course,Teaching Experience in Further Education, requires participantsto be engaged in at least 120 h practical teaching and to completeteaching logs and observations.

Following a day-long face-to-face induction to the pro-gramme as a whole, the first three courses include four face-to-face workshops (for the second and third courses one of these isreplaced with an online workshop), two pair or small grouptutorials, support from a local co-tutor, independent study ofonline activities and resources, and collaborative investigativework. Throughout the programme WebCT discussions areavailable for learners to share ideas and resources and to obtain

Fig. 1. The ‘Learning Lexicon' home page for the TQ(FE) course Professional Issues in Further Education.

35S. Cornelius, C. Gordon / Internet and Higher Education 11 (2008) 33–41

help and advice. Assessment for the taught courses is by asubstantive written assignment which encourages critical ana-lysis of the learners' professional context and practice andreflection on their own progress as a learner.

A flexible set of learning activities to support each of the threetaught courses is accessible online through WebCT. These learn-ing activities may be studied independently, by small col-laborative groups, or as part of occasional face-to-face or onlineworkshops. They are all available throughout the programme tolearners and tutors and are provided online as a ‘LearningLexicon’ which organises the activities under key terms (Fig. 1).There is no prescribed route through the Lexicon for each course,nor is there any requirement for learners to complete all of theactivities provided. Instead they are encouraged to plot their own‘Learning Journey’ through the activities based on an initialevaluation of their strengths, weaknesses, and interests against theProfessional Standards for lecturers in FE (SE, 2006).

Individual activities in the Learning Lexicon (Fig. 2) mayrequire reading from course texts, study of text, video, or audioextracts, practical activities, group discussion, self-evaluation, orquizzes. All activities are supplemented by a ‘reflection form’ toencourage reflection on learning and on the practical applicationof the knowledge gained.Many of the resources for these activitiesare stored as simple learning objects (Wiley, 2000) and hosted by

Fig. 2. An sample page providing access to activities

the University of Aberdeen's Learning Object Repository tofacilitate maintenance and update and to promote sharing andreuse within the university. The flexibility of learning objects forcourse design has been well documented elsewhere (Conceicao,Olgren, & Ploetz, 2006; Mason, Pegler, & Weller, 2005; Weller,Pegler, &Mason, 2005a). Delivery of activities is via WebCTandthis platform is also used for the delivery of online workshops.

This activity-focused model for the delivery of coursecontent is summarised in Fig. 3. It encourages flexibility by:

- providing transparency to learners— all activities are accessiblewhenever required

- providing flexible routes through the material and the optionto focus on particular areas of interest or need

- providing flexibility of study modes — the same resourcescan be employed for independent study, can be used as abasis for group discussion, or can be facilitated in a tutor-ledworkshop

- providing a diversity of resources (text, presentation, audio,video, etc.) to meet different learners' preferences

- allowing tutors access to all of the course resources duringface-to-face workshops— so that, for example, a presentationcould be drawn upon, or an additional or alternative activityemployed in response to student needs and interests

for the Learning Lexicon term ‘Changing Roles'.

Fig. 3. The activity-focused content model used for the TQ(FE) programme.

36 S. Cornelius, C. Gordon / Internet and Higher Education 11 (2008) 33–41

- allowing ease of updating and reuse. It is anticipated that someof the resources will be reused in other versions of the TQ(FE)programme, notably a completely online version and post-graduate programme.

Flexibility is also promoted in collaborative investigationswhich must be undertaken throughout the programme. Learnershave the flexibility to define their own topics for these in-vestigations and through original research and study theygenerate new content which they then present and discuss aspart of the course. As part of their investigations groups areencouraged to explore relevant sections of the Learning Lexicontogether. Formal assessment tasks draw on work undertakenduring collaborative investigations and learners are encouragedto consider submitting materials for assessment in a variety ofmedia.

3. Methods used for the evaluation of flexibility in the TQ(FE) programme

The involvement of a number of tutors in the facilitation of TQ(FE) provided a valuable opportunity to draw on a diverse rangeof experiences in different college contexts to evaluate theeffectiveness of the programme. The approach taken to evaluationhas been based on ideas from grounded theory whereby theoryand understanding is emergent from the data generated by thevarious types of evidence collected (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).

In order to collect feedback on the programme three sourcesof evidence were used:

- artefacts produced by tutors. These include reflective journals,a jointly authored reflective blog, and other sources whichdocument experiences of tutoring the programme. Theseartefacts were subject to iterative readings to identify commonthemes.

- a structured reflective conversation (Brookfield, 1995) invol-ving seven tutors reviewed the overall aims and objectives of

the programme. This conversation was recorded. Tworesearchers took notes from the recording and independentlyanalysed the notes for emerging themes. Their results werecompared and collated and then reviewed by participants.

- structured 30 min individual interviews with 5 tutors. Againthese were recorded and a constant comparative method,similar to that adopted by Stodel, Thompson, and MacDonald(2006) was employed for analysis. This involved thedevelopment of a list of emergent categories through it-erative review of the first interview, then review and mergingof categories and issues as subsequent interviews wereanalysed.

The structured reflective conversation and interviews werefacilitated by the authors, who are themselves tutors on theprogramme. Issues of subjectivity and potential bias might beidentified as a result, however, in common with Weller, Peglar,and Mason (2005b) it was felt that an in-depth understanding ofthe programme was an advantage which would outweigh anydisadvantages of this approach. Potential bias has been ad-dressed to some extent by procedures to ensure anonymity ofnotes through the use of a coding scheme known only to theinterviewer and by the random allocation of tutors to in-terviewer. Themes emerging from data analysis have beenreviewed by participants as the work has progressed.

4. Findings

The findings of this study have revealed some of the positiveand negative aspects of flexibility. Themes which emerged fromdata analysis which represent the positive aspects of flexiblelearning in this programme are considered first below and takentogether give an insight into the tutors' views of the potentialvalue of flexibility. Challenges which emerged are thenpresented in five sub-sections: missed opportunities, assessmentvs. learning, learner-centred collaborative learning, the ‘invi-sible course’, and barriers created by information technology.

37S. Cornelius, C. Gordon / Internet and Higher Education 11 (2008) 33–41

4.1. Positive aspects of flexibility on the TQ(FE) programme

Four key themes have emerged from the data collected forthis study. These are:

- the ability of the programme to transform learners' practiceand attitudes

- the importance of opportunities for reflection- the value of collaboration and development of a learningcommunity

- evidence of learner engagement in wider professional issuesand development of practice.

The tutors surveyed view the transformative potential of theTQ(FE) programme as a feature of particular importance. Theycited specific examples of learners whose practice and attitudeshad been transformed by the programme:

“They'd made a big shift, and they were talking about thelearner, and the learning, not about the subject and thesubject-related skills.”

“He reported that TQFE had transformed his practice.”

A growth in confidence was reported for such learners alongwith increasing engagement in their professional role. Thisengagement with wider issues and development of dialogueabout issues of learning and teaching is a significant impact:

“For me I think this is what TQ(FE) is all about. It's notabout particular pockets of a learned theory or whatever, it'sabout engaging people and enthusing them with that kind ofongoing discussion and development of practice.”

In order to achieve this transformation it was recognised thattutors need to provide time and opportunities for reflection:

“[Facilitation is about] validating their experiences, encoura-ging them to share their experiences, and then you create thatlearning for everybody from the things they've talked about. Idon't think lecturers get very much opportunity to speakabout what they do in the classroom, reflectively.”

Tutors felt that students would say that they have becomemore reflective as a result of the programme:

“Most would say ‘I thought I was reflective, but I'm muchmore reflective now because I know how to do it’.”

The cultural context of the course is also crucial. Thetutoring team themselves recognise the value of working as aneffective and reflective team, both with and apart from thestudents on the programme. The role of the collaborative in-vestigations was also felt to be critical in developing a learningcommunity:

“The emphasis before was that they would discuss things in agroup, but they were still individual learners. I think thecollaborative investigations have really brought them together”

The result of this collaboration is an effective learningcommunity:

“…this…iswhat the TQ(FE) hasmanaged for those students— areal engagement with issues around education and how they aretaking that into their practice…it seemed to me to be evidencethat they had formed a real community of practice around aninterest in their teaching and education in a way that they wouldnever have engaged even with one another before TQ(FE).”

Other evidence from this study indicates that tutors on the TQ(FE) programme valued the flexible elements, most notably thechoice of content available, opportunities for learners to select theirown topics for collaborative investigations, and the encouragementfor diversity and originality of media submitted with assignments.However, it was generally felt that there had been ‘more flexibilityavailable thanwas used’ by learners.A notable examplewas relatedto the assignment formatwhere very limited use ofmedia other thantext had been observed. Students were perceived to be ‘playing itsafe’ and influenced by the assessment strategy.

The use of learning objects and activities at the core of thecontent design were seen to offer benefits in terms of ease ofmodification and updating. This finding aligns with those ofWeller et al. (2005a) where a learning object model used in acourse dealing with new technologies was reported to alloweasy integration of objects addressing new subject matter, andremoval of those no longer of interest.

4.2. The challenges of a flexible learner-centred programme

The key themes emerging from this research which representchallenges posed by the TQ(FE) programme have been categorisedinto five areas. These are considered further in turn below. They are:

- missed opportunities for transformation and a perceived lackof engagement with materials

- unease with assessment being unable to acknowledge actualtransformation in practice and associated issues of academicliteracies

- barriers to learner-centred collaborative activities- barriers created by information technology- the invisibility of the course and issues of insecurity with andperceptions of online resources.

4.2.1. Missed opportunitiesA downside of the flexible approach is that there may be

‘missed opportunities’. Tutors reported various disappointments,including evidence of learners not engaging with activities andreading material, and those who were reluctant, at first at least, toengage in any way with the course. A small minority of learnerscould be identified whose approach was ‘how can I get throughthe programmewith theminimum of effort’. This is not a problemwhich is a consequence of a flexible course model but one tutoridentified that for some learners the problem would not be solvedwith a more structured approach either:

“…the new course is more flexible – people do have morechoice and are encouraged to make choices about what to do

38 S. Cornelius, C. Gordon / Internet and Higher Education 11 (2008) 33–41

and when, in what order – I think if he had been given arigid timetable and a rigid linear progression he would stillhave stuck his heels in.”

In most cases the initially reluctant learner could be turnedaround. The collaborative elements of the course were identifiedas a possible driver for this re-engagement with learning where itdid occur:

“I am guessing that the collaboration with his colleagueswas vital…there is something about ‘being a learner togetherwith other learners’ that somehow did it for him, drove himout. Maybe he caught the attitude and enthusiasm of othersand that drew him out of his entrenched position.”

The resulting transformation and engagement with the pro-gramme and practice was for several tutors a real positive aspectof the programme for individuals and groups:

“By the end of the programme he was enthusiastic; hereported that TQ(FE) had transformed his practice. He isnow preparing lesson plans without having to…he feelsmore in control, playing full part as a member of a team incollege where previously he felt he was the man brought into fill gaps in the timetable.”

Engagement with the flexible learning materials was felt bysome tutors to be an important pre-requisite for a successfullearning experience on the part of learners. However, evidencegathered during the course indicated that this engagement was notalways taking place. One tutor expressed concern about limited useof lexicon resources by some of her group despite encouragementto explore and engage with the materials individually and in col-laborative groups. Despite clear evidence of isolated examples of aminimalist approach to the lexicon materials, further research withstudents (which is underway at the time of writing) suggests thatthis is not a general issue, and in fact some students have exceededexpectations and ‘done everything’ available, whilst others haveclearly engaged with a wide range of provided materials andadditional reading.

4.2.2. Assessment vs. learningAnother disappointment reported by tutors was the discre-

pancy between what had actually been learned on the programmeand what was being assessed. Despite careful constructivealignment of assessment criteria and tasks with learning ob-jectives (Sharpe, Benfield, Roberts, & Francis, 2006), it stillappeared to be the case that some learners took far more from theprogramme than the assignments allowed them to demonstrate.One tutor reported that the lowest point of the programme for herwas returning the second assignment:

“because many had put a lot of effort in and had talked in thegroup about howmuch they had learned…about the changes intheir practice, but in assignment terms their marks had eithernot changed or had even in some occasions gone down…Iknew particularly that [one] student would be gutted andsomehow it wasn't fair because in terms of her learningjourney she has gone miles and that was not reflected at all.”

In the case of the student referred to above, the significantfactor was felt to be her academic writing skills which let herdown in terms of the assessment criteria. The tutor identifiedthat ‘the thing about the academic assignment is that it is not justabout us, but it gets stuck in their expectations as well as ours.’This issue cannot be linked specifically to the flexible nature ofthe programme, but it was clearly significant and highlights theneed to carefully examine and monitor assessment strategieswithin such a programme.

4.2.3. Learner-centred collaborative learningAt the core of definitions of flexible learning is the notion of

shifting the focus from the teacher to the learner. Hubball andPoole (2004) advocated learning-centred education using a “widerange of learning strategies that allow for complex problem-solving and differentiated responses from different participants”to help respond to “the diverse needs and circumstances of amultidisciplinary cohort” (p. 22). They also suggest that learning-centred education should include “collaborative learning experi-ences” with an emphasis on “the investigation and resolution ofauthentic problems through interactive and experiential engage-ment” (Hubball & Poole, 2004, p. 12). The TQ(FE) collaborativeinvestigations were designed with these principles in mind andallowed learners to select topics of interest or relevance to theirpractice to investigate further in a small group. One tutordescribed these investigations as ‘fabulous opportunities forcreativity and team effort’ and they clearly had an important role,as outlined above, in terms of motivation and engagement.However, they were not without problems. Issues of groupdynamics and collaborative working abilities arose, whichmay, inpart, be a consequence of the culture prevalent in FE, one which isnot generally conducive to collaboration. In some instances moreserious issues arose for individuals and groups, for example the‘person no-one wanted in their group’:

“At the very end of the programme, I found out how verydifficult one of the students had been in …groups…He hadn'tbeen able to build relationships that had allowed him toparticipate in groups.”

It is interesting to consider that these issues arose amongst agroup of mature professional learners and a timely reminder thatattention always needs to be paid to the establishment of groundrules for group work and development of an appropriatevocabulary for discussion of collaborative working experiences.

4.2.4. Information technologyVarious IT issues were reported as barriers to flexibility for

learners that impacted negatively on the ‘learner-centredness’ ofthe programme. In some cases access to a computer (particularlyfrom home) was a problem, for others, online access proveddifficult. Access to some online resources (for example chatrooms, social networking and file sharing sites) is currentlyprohibited from within most college campuses. In addition aclear preference for reading hard copy was noted amongstlearners, but reading materials were provided as PDF files.Pragmatic considerations dictated some of the IT solutions, butsome tutors argued that, along with the need to access all course

39S. Cornelius, C. Gordon / Internet and Higher Education 11 (2008) 33–41

resources online, IT issues presented a barrier for some learners.Rennie (2007) echoes this view, noting that “difficulties inaccessing the Internet…may be minor problems in the scale ofthings, but when users are accustomed to the familiarity of themedium these can seem major barriers” (p. 31). Problems couldalso be frustrating for tutors:

“I found it very difficult when people struggled with thetechnology.”

Willems (2007) suggested that flexible learning can actuallylead to a dependence on particular equipment, places andschedules. Internet access and (perhaps of more relevance tolearners in rural areas and developing countries) power stability,and telephone connection are highlighted by her work. She citesexamples of learners in Australia who found technical issuesrestricted the times and places in which they could study.Willems (2007) suggested that “simply putting the materials ‘outthere’ in new formats does not necessarily equate to individualsbeing able to fully access or engage with them” (p. 433). Addedto this is clearly the stress that limited technical support mayproduce for learners (Rennie, 2007).

4.2.5. The ‘invisible course’A final issue for tutors was in part due to the reliance on

online delivery. A feeling that the course was ‘invisible’ wasexpressed:

“I missed the PR of having nice booklets to give out, ofhaving everything visible.”

The ‘invisible course’ created some insecurities for bothtutors and learners at the start as it was felt that ‘packagingimpacts on perception’.

“When you first go in to deliver a course, there is somethingabout the presentation of it— you only have one opportunity.The way we package things has a huge impact on how peoplesee it.”

The ‘invisible course’ requires a shift in expectations and thenature and the processes involved in engaging with it requireexplanation. There is something too about the solidity andreassurance offered by paper documents which is lacking whenall materials are provided online.

“I didn't feel I got off to that strong, here-we-go start thatyou like with a course, so that people know exactly whatthey'd got to do, they had things in front of them that theycould look at. So that ‘virtual’ experience made me feel thatI hadn't given them the reassuring confidence to take thecourse forward.”

These insecurities may have been due, in part, to the fact that theflexible nature of the programmewas a new experience for learnersand tutors. Hill (2006) recognised the need to offer support to helplearners become more comfortable in a flexible setting, and thesame idea could be extended to tutors. She suggested that it is“important for instructors to have a robust understanding of whatflexible delivery and flexible learning means and how they willimplement flexibility in their courses” (Hill, 2006; p. 190–191).

5. Implications for programme development

Collis and Moonen (2001) acknowledged that flexiblelearning presents educators with a new set of challenges, andthat more choice for the learner will result in more demands onthe instructor. If the learner has more choices, the tutor may berequired to help them individualise their experience rather thanspend time planning and delivering. Hill (2006) considered thatthe core principles of flexible learning require tutors to take onthe role of guides who work collaboratively with learners andnegotiate changes andmodifications to allow individual needs tobe met.

The findings presented here have also highlighted factors thatare important for the design and delivery of a flexible learner-centred programme. Recognition of the opportunities andchallenges posed by the TQ(FE) have helped to reveal keyelements that contribute to a successful learning experience.From the tutor perspective these combine in a collaborativelearning community, involving both academic team membersand learners.

The experience of working on the development of the TQ(FE) was, for several of the team members, a rewarding andeffective approach.

“[The energy comes from] the staff team, primarily — thesharing of ideas, of resources, and pooling things, yet havingthe ability to use it flexibly, with people not being upset if youuse it in a different way, or not quite as they intended.”

The team was ‘a team in the true sense of the word’recognised as sharing values and responsibilities, demonstratinghigh levels of trust, supported by effective leadership and acommitment to regular meetings and showing a willingness totake risks and innovate. Particularly important was that time hadbeen spent as a team exposing individual views and values and‘finding out what really mattered’. The result was a learningexperience for participants and an environment in which theachievements appeared to be more than the sum of the individualcontributions:

“I have learned so much from all of you. I have learnedmore through what I've done in this last year of the TQ(FE)than what I've learned in a team situation — ever.”

Engaging in reflective conversations, in pairs, small groups, andas a whole team was particularly valued, and it was felt that moreformal capturing of some of these reflections would be helpful.

6. Recommendations

Strategies and techniques for facilitators of flexible learninghave been presented by Hill (2006). Her suggestions, based onher own practice and research, can be summarised as:

• Create a robust infrastructure and keep it up-to-date• Create a time and space for responding to student messages• Be willing and able to commit more time to the course [thanfor face-to-face]

• Check communications on a regular basis

40 S. Cornelius, C. Gordon / Internet and Higher Education 11 (2008) 33–41

• Sharpen abilities to communicate at a distance• Be aware of standards and guiding principles for distancelearning.

The evaluation undertaken with TQ(FE) tutors offers analternative perspective, and whilst recognising the limitations ofgeneralising from the experiences of a small group of tutorsworking together on an individual programme of study, it isuseful to draw together some of the findings presented aboveand propose recommendations for others designing andimplementing flexible learning. These recommendations relateto three elements of the programme — the programme team,programme design, and programme facilitation:

Programme team- build a strong programme team with shared values andvision, an effective leader, and commitment to regularmeetings

- provide formal opportunities for individual and teamreflection and learning

- encourage innovation and risk-taking in a supported,trusting community

Programme design- provide collaborative learning opportunities that willengage all learners

- provide opportunities for learners to reflect on thetransformation of their attitudes and practice

- align assessment with objectives, whilst providingopportunities to recognise individual transformation

Programme facilitation- make the course ‘visible’ with clear explanations andmodelling of process

- be sensitive to inflexibilities introduced by a reliance ona particular technological approach

- be aware of issues of group dynamics in facilitation ofcollaborative course elements

- view the programme team as part of the collaborativelearning community.

Willems (2007) stressed the importance of acknowledgingthe ‘inflexibilities’ in any flexible learning scenario. To this endit is important that we investigate further learners' experiencesof flexible learning.

Acknowledgements

Thanks are due to our colleagues from the University ofAberdeen who have been involved in the design and facilitationof the TQ(FE) programme. Particular thanks are due to thosewho participated in the structured conversation and individualinterviews.

References

Bang, J., & Dalsgaard, C. (2006). Rethinking e-learning: Shifting the focus tolearning activities. In E. K. Sorenson (Ed.), Enhancing learning throughtechnology Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.

Bridgland, A., & Blanchard, P. (2001). Flexible delivery/flexible learning…doesit make a difference? Australian Academic and Research Libraries, 23(3)(Retrieved September 20, 2007 from www.alia.org.au/publishing/aarl/32.3/full.text/bridgland.blanchard.html).

Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Casey, J., & Wilson, P. (2006). A practical guide to providing flexible learningin further and higher education. Gloucester: QAA.

Collis, B., & Moonen, J. (2001). Flexible learning in a digital world:Experiences and expectations. London: Kogan Page.

Collis, B., Vingerhoets, J., & Moonen, J. (1997). Flexibility as a key construct inEuropean training: Experiences from the TeleScopia Project. British Journalof Educational Technology, 28(3), 199−218.

Conceicao, S., Olgren, C., & Ploetz, P. (2006). Reusing learning objects in threesettings: Implications for online instruction.Instructional technology anddistance learning April 2006. (Retrieved May 15, 2007 from www.itdl.org/journal/april_06_article-1.htm).

Cornelius, S., & Gordon, C. (2005). Developing skills in online learning forFurther Education Lecturers. Scottish Education Review, 37(2), 145−152.

Cornelius, S., & Weller, M. (2005, Junee). Learning with learning objects.Proceedings of CRLL (Centre for Research in Lifelong Learning) conference“What a difference a pedagogy makes” Scotland: Glasgow CaledonianUniversity, Centre for Research in Lifelong Learning.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory,strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co.

Hill, J. R. (2006). Flexible learning environments: Leveraging the affordances offlexible delivery and flexible learning. Innovations in Higher Education, 31,187−197.

Hubball, H., & Poole, G. (2004). Learning-centred education to meet the diverseneeds and circumstances of university faculty through an eight-monthprogramme on teaching and learning in Higher Education. InternationalJournal for Academic Development, 8(1–2), 11−24.

Jochems, W., van Merrienboer, J., & Koper, R. (2004). Integrated E-learning:Implications for pedagogy, technology and organisation. Open and flexiblelearning series Abingdon: Routledge Falmer.

Mason, R., Pegler, C., & Weller, M. (2005). A learning object success story.Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(1), 97−105.

Moon, J. (2004). Reflection in learning and professional development. London:RoutledgeFalmer.

Moran, L., & Myringer, B. (1999). In K. Harry (Ed.), Flexible learning anduniversity changeHigher Education through Open and Distance Learning:World Review of Distance Education and Open Learning, Vol. 157–171.London: Routledge.

Normand, C., & Littlejohn, A. (2006). Flexible delivery: A model for analysisand implementation of flexible programme delivery. Gloucester: QAA.

Rennie, F. (2007). The use of flexible learning resources for geographicallydistributed rural students. Distance Education, 24(1), 25−39.

Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (SCQF) (2007). Table of mainqualifications. (Retrieved 20Nov, 2007 from http://www.scqf.org.uk/table.htm).

Scottish Executive (SE) (2006). Professional standards for lecturers inScotland's colleges: June 2006 (Retrieved 26 Sept, 2007 from http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/06/13164029/0).

Sharpe, R., Benfield, G., Roberts, G., & Francis, R. (2006). The undergraduateexperience of blended e-learning: A review of UK literature and practice.Report for the Higher Education Academy (Retrieved 26 Sept, 2007 fromhttp://www.heacademy.ac.uk/ourwork/research/litreviews/2005_06).

Stodel, E. J., Thompson, T. L., & MacDonald, C. J. (2006, Decemberr).Learners' perspectives on what is missing from online learning: Interpreta-tions through the community of inquiry framework.International Review ofResearch in Open and Distance Learning, 7(3) (Retrieved May 24, 2007from www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/viewArticle/325/743).

Twigg, C. (2002). Improving quality and reducing costs: Designs for effectivelearning using information technology.London: The Observatory onBorderless Higher Education (retrieved Sept 26, 2007 from http://www.kent.ac.uk/uelt/technology/webct/Twigg_report.pdf).

Weatherley, C., Bonney, B., Kerr, J., & Morrison, J. (2003). Transformingteaching and learning: Developing ‘Critical Skills’ for living and working inthe 21st Century. Stafford: Network Educational Press.

41S. Cornelius, C. Gordon / Internet and Higher Education 11 (2008) 33–41

Weller, M., Pegler, C., & Mason, R. (2005a). Use of innovative technologies onan e-learning course. Internet and Higher Education, 8, 61−71.

Weller, M., Peglar, C., & Mason, R. (2005b). Students' experience ofcomponent versus integrated virtual learning environments. Journal ofComputer Assisted Learning, 21, 253−259.

Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communitiesof practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Boston: Harvard BusinessSchool Press.

Wiley, D. A. (2000). Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory:A definition, a metaphor and a taxonomy. In D. A. Wiley (Ed.), Theinstructional use of learning objects (Retrieved May 24, 2007 fromreusability.org/rea/chapters/wiley.doc).

Willems, J. (2007). Flexible learning: Implications of “when-ever, “where-ever”and “what-ever”. Distance Education, 26(3), 429−435.